Slashdot Mirror
Ford Airstream Electric Concept Car
Not to be upstaged by GM's plug-in electric concept vehicle, Ford has unveiled its own concept. The twists are design by Airstream and a hydrogen-powered fuel cell to charge the battery. From the AutoblogGreen article: "The fuel cell, made by Ballard, turns on automatically when the battery charge dips below 40 percent. With the on-board charger (110/220 VAC), the battery pack can be refilled at home. Ford says the HySeries Drive is 50 percent smaller and less complex than conventional fuel cell system and should have more than double the lifetime."
This is where there is a lot of money to be made. A plug in vehicle that has a range of about 40 miles will take care of the business that most people use in their day to day lives, while having a small fuel cell or gasoline generator available for occasional longer journeys will make it feasible as a normal car. They just need to make sure it doesn't look like the Prius and handles like a normal car (and not a tin car) and they can make a lot of money. But then again this is Ford. They'll invent the systems while Toyota or Honda will actually make an effective product.
Is that visual design supposed to be some sort of physically manifested sarcasm about "green" cars? How do they expect to win over the SUV crowd with the mirror plated SissyMobile? At least make the thing look respectable when pulling up to Home Depot.
We are all just people.
appealing. http://www.electroauto.com/index.html Examples of some that are available. They are less shiny, less costly, and still get the same performance as standard plugin systems that are new. I just don't like the way that such cars seem to require a special new look. meh! Just build a nice commuter car with fantastic mileage, that's what we really want.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
If you're driving with the sun behind you and this thing is driving towards you, the glare would blind you enough to veer off the road!
Seriously, plug in is dead, fuel cell or other self-contained has to be the future. And hybrid has to be the past.
No, its not. There is no self contained sustainable fuel that is remotely viable at this stage.
Your non-renewable options are:
Petrol/Diesel
Natural Gas
Your renewable transport options are:
Hydrogen (*)
Biodiesel & Alcohols (+)
Electricity
Other esoteric energy stores.
The joy of electricity is simple - it piggy backs off whatever we decide to power the world with for fixed structures. That solution may be nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal or hydroelectric. It really doesn't matter, as long as we can store the energy sufficiently well in a car to get around. If you think that is going to be too hard, explain to me why its going to be easier to store hydrogen, because I see alot more things running off batteries now that hydrogen energy sources.
Just my opinions here,
Happy to see what others think,
Michael
(*) Right now all hydrogen is formed from hydrocarbon sources. Its hard to hold as it destroys the metals that hold it in compressed form. It loses most of the energy put into it in the compression cycle to get it into its container so that you only get about 30% of the energy put in.
(+) Definitely an option for some parts of the world, but not really going to work well for many countries as they don't have enough arable land to make all the biomass. And to make it replace fossil fuels for cars will require so much water to irrigate the crops we will probably have to start building massive numbers of desalination plants, etc. Personally I'd rather keep the land areas untouched and go for renewables, but some countries do manage this option ok.
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
Dont these cars use lithium ion batteries? Dont li-ion batteries lose capacity rather quickly? How often do you hybrid/electric drivers replace these batteries? How much do they cost?
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
A concept car is just what I am looking for to drive to my concept job!
The Prius is equipped with NiMH battery (Toyota will switch over to Lithium ion battery in 2009). This thing from Ford is powered by fuel cell. They are two different things.
With this aside, I wonder why they use onboard alternator to recharge the fuel cell. Making H from H2O through electrolysis is not very efficient (the biggest number I heard is around 40%).
I half expect that central column to start pumping up and down with a high pitched grinding noise as the vehicle slowly disappears.
The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
I doubt that on board electrolysis would be worth the additional vehicle weight. It seems that hydrogen refueling is left as an exercise to the operator. Although it would be amusing to have to plug your car into the wall socket AND the garden hose.
Hey, I think I played one of those things in Rifts.
The article and summary both clearly say that the fuel cell charges the battery, and not the other way round.
e.g.
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?rele
Deleted
In the article about the Chevy Volt concept car, I ranted about why GM didn't just manufacture and market the EV-1? Most people "don't want" 2-seater cars with an 80-mile range? Fine, no problem, don't try to sell it to most people, just sell it to the few people that do.
Well, since then, I've read Clayton M. Christensen's The Innovator's Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Great, great book. Everyone should read it. And I'm stunned by how perfectly the car companies are falling into the exact trap he describes. And how perfectly the electric car fits his definition of "disruptive technology." And, yes, he does talk about them in the last chapter.
Chevy and GM need to spin off a small division, a la IBM spinning off the Boca Raton PC division, to make and market an electric car. Not a future "sustaining technology" electric car that meets the needs of existing customers of gasoline cars. (Hybrids a la the Prius are a perfect example of that). Just... EV-1's, which are known to have a small market... a market which puts different values on things than the existing car market. A small spinoff for which that market is worthwhile. A spinoff that plays by its rules and doesn't need to compare the profit margin of an EV-1 with the profit margin of a Suburban, so it won't divert all its effort to building Suburbans. A small spinoff that will sell the cars to anyone it can find who will buy one, and will thereby find the new market for them.
Then, over time, the existing business for currently feasible small EVs will result in learning curve improvements, economies of scale, better batteries, longer ranges, bigger vehicles and suddenly one day the mainstream buyer will notice that the electrics _are_ competitive for the traditional market.
Yes, I know... you can tell that I've just read Christensen's book. Which has been out for a decade. But judging from the big carmakers, I'm not the only one who hasn't read it.
Just do it, Detroit. Stop fooling around with the concept cars, the great stuff that's always been just around the corner since 1939. Don't build a prototype of tomorrow's car, build a real car, now, and sell it, today.
Just start up the EV-1 line and build some more. Just like the last. Then sell them. Then build some that are a little better. Then sell them. And s on.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
This article was confusing to me also until I read the press release by Ford-http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_displa y.cfm?release=25150. This is a hybrid in that it is powered by a Li-Ion battery and a Hydrogen fuel cell. There is a "350-bar hydrogen tank that supplies 4.5 kg of useable hydrogen". So you can plug it into the wall to recharge the battery but you must recharge the fuel tank with hydrogen. Also the battery only gives you a distance of 25 miles whereas the Fuel cell gives you 280 miles. There is no electrolysis.
Where did you get the idea that there's a gasoline powertrain from?
Concepts like this are a joke. It's not how to replace the cars we drive is getting rid of them and transporting people efficiently which will make the difference.
[J]
Without either of those, this is just a short-range electric car. <yawn>
PEM fuel cells have been one of the two stumbling blocks for hydrogen vehicles for years. It wasn't long ago that a stack for a car cost a half a million to a million dollars (due to hand-assembly and platinum content) and had a fairly short lifespan. Li-ion batteries to get the same range would cost a fraction as much, and they are coming down in price/kWh at a steady rate. Lifespan is going way up with the new chemistries and nanoparticle materials.
Hydrogen is the other form of Unobtanium. It would take something like a trillion dollars to build out a new hydrogen-fuelling infrastructure to replace petroleum motor fuels. (Got a spare trillion handy, or did it go for Bush's War?) Further, the production of hydrogen from non-fossil energy sources is very inefficient; a PEM electrolyzer is maybe 75% and a PEM fuel cell is about 60%, for a best-case throughput of 45% (before compression energy is considered). In contrast, a lithium-ion battery is about 95% efficient.
There are no ways around this; production of hydrogen from e.g. aluminum is much lossier than electrolysis. Making a renewable hydrogen economy requires not one but two kinds of Unobtanium.
So why's the US government pushing hydrogen? It's my suspicion that the oil interests want all the alt-energy money spent on things which cannot work, thus guaranteeing that taxpayer-funded research will never threaten their gravy train. A few million dollars in campaign funding thus buys them many $billions in increased revenue; probably the best investment they could ever make.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Why are the modern cars of the jet set radio future always so ugly? Telsa Motors is doing right what everyone else is doing wrong.
One thing I don't get about the whole plug-in-only concept is why these cars don't have Photo-voltaic cells to complement the battery system. Solar-only doesn't work, but in many areas you could squeeze out significantly more "miles per charge" with a solar panel. And for commuters, your car sits outside in the lot for most of the peak collecting hours anyway, not anywhere near a charger.
Here is the thing: hybrids do not provide substantial fuel economy and environmental impact gains for people driving long highway commutes. It works very well in a frequent stop-and-go driving situation. While Toyota put the Prius on the market, GM spent their time developing a 2-mode hybrid bus providing both a boost in efficiency and comfort. When the bus leaves a stop, it relies on the electric motor while slowly ramping up the natural gas diesel engine. These buses have replace the fleet of tour buses at Yosemite National Park, where tour guides have reported seeing more wildlife on tours as these buses do not produce as much noise as previous buses, hence not scaring the animals away.
FYI, in GMC's booth at the NAIAS today is the 2-mode hybrid Yukon. This is due out in 2008.
Toyota may have beaten Detroit to the consumer hybrid table, but their days of dominance in this field is numbered. GM alone will, as of 2008, have a hybrid sedan (Aura Green Line), hybrid crossover SUV (Vue Green Line), and full size truck SUV (hybrid Tahoe/Yukon/Silverado/Sierra). That means you can drive a hybrid that actually looks like a regular car (imagine that!) instead of a poorly executed fashion statement.
Off-peak would mean "at night". I've lived through a Texas summer; it does get cooler at night, the asphalt roads actually solidify!
A big enough electric-vehicle fleet would let you take advantage of surplus energy at any time of the day, not just at night. This would be great for Texas, because Texas wind could supply 1190 billion KWh/year, about 30% of US electric demand by itself. Take 20% of that (238 billion kWh), use it to charge vehicles consuming ~400 Wh/mile (much more than current EV's) for a state average of perhaps 20,000 miles/year, and you can run about 30 million vehicles on nothing but electricity. (You'd need about 90 GW of wind generation at 30% capacity factor, but today's ramp rate will have us there in 15 years or less.)
You can also use surplus juice to make ice for A/C the next day, or next week. You just keep topping up the bank whenever energy is available, and if you run too low you start up the extra fossil-fired plants. Meanwhile, you save $billions on expensive and depleting natural gas and the oil Texas now has to import from hostile countries.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Serious electric storage is kind of pointless, as is hydrogen. Hydrogen and stored electricity are both a pain in the ass to deal with, and both generated via coal-fired power plants.
Short-term high-current electrical storage is nice for serial-hybrid designs. (serial hybrids have fuel burning engines without mechanical connection to the wheels) High-current storage lets you get sports car acceleration despite having a fuel-burning engine only big enough for typical use. Use biodiesel if you like.
Size the engine to be just barely big enough to carry a car full of fat people up a mountain pass. Size the electrical storage to be enough to store all the energy generated by the engine and regenerative braking when you slow from 70 MPH to a stop where you wait for a slow freight train or drawbridge. Be sure that the stored energy plus engine-provided energy is enough to keep all 4 wheels at the threshold of losing traction as you accelerate from 0 to 80 MPH, assuming high-traction tires on dry pavement of course.
Hey, that would be worth paying a premium for.
Boy did I cringe when Bush suddenly got all excited about hydrogen. I wonder if he believes the nonsense or if he's in on the lie. He's really not dumb; that just plays well to many voters.
Pressured by the Japanese hybrid success and all the environmentalists, the US car industry had to do something. They created a distraction. Hydrogen is something they can research for decades, and probably a great excuse for federal research funding. It's something to keep us from thinking about hybrids and regulations.
No problem: I'll agree to drive one of these to work every day, if you agree to wear a clown suit to work every day. Deal?
For some reason all US cars these days look like something you'd rather go to war with than take a ride to the grocery store in. They all look like tanks. Heavy armored look, narrow windows that minimize exposure to enemy fire... no wonder they don't sell in Europe. Have people become so militarized and indoctrinated with the idea that "life is war" that their psyche actually wants cars like this?
I mean, at least in a crash you can try being in the bigger vehicle so that you're less likely to die while the other participant hopefully does, instead of both of you being in lighter vehicles which would maybe injure both but less severely... that would be for Socialist sissies!
Is there any research as to whether there is a corresponding influence on a person's way of driving when they choose to drive something that tries to look as intimidating as possible?
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
As a consumer and someone who CAN produce his own hydrogen (Living in South Florida, I certainly do have access to significant amount of solar energy), do I really care how ineffecient splitting water is compared to a perfect solution? I know, I'm an evil SOB for even thinking individuals can tell the oil company AND government to go stick their pricing and taxes where the sun doesn't shine. But the last is what has the leftist in the biggest uproar, hydrogen will mean a shortfall of tax revenues needed to fund their agenda and having independence for individuals of not having the government controling their daily life by yet another means (taxes does indeed control behavior, see sin taxes).
As far as Ford's vehicle, OMG is that damn thing ugly! Compared to Honda http://world.honda.com/fcx/ that thing looks like it should be back in the 1970s. Honda is also working on Home Energy Stations (can't find the latest press release showing what it would look like in a typical garage) with the first version using natural gas (home solar is in developement) that should be going on sale in 08 with the FCX.
Dammy
GMs pretend vehicle just got one-upped by Ford.
GM -- "...and our vehicle will make your toast and tie your shoes!"
Ford -- "Well that's nothing! Our vehicle will fly, read your thoughts and, and, and...and it has the Cloak of Invisibility!!! Yea! That's it!."
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
Yup, need a fill just drop by your corner hydrogen station. Road trip? One every ten miles on the freeway anywhere in the U.S. right? Yup, yup, yup. This'll fly.
I guess they call them concept cars because the term "vaporware" hadn't been invented in the day. And I would have to guess it is how Ford is boldly signaling: 1) they really don't give a damn, or 2) they still have their heads so far up their corporate ass that to this day they are thinking "fleet market trade" (as if consumer Priuses aren't already a day-to-day sight on the streets).
And why the 300 million dollar gift Ford is getting from the State of Michigan taxpayers to keep plants open is just pissing into the wind. I think what I find most disgusting is that a company claiming it is on the verge of economic collapse expends this much effort on something designed to give their PR department a direction to wax nostalgic about the family aluminum trailer of the 1930s. They have demonstrated that one thing Americans can still do is B.S.
Look at the size of the USB / firewire port on this thing! Ack!
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!